House Approves Bill Banning Flag Burning

Desecration Measure Rouses Heated Debate

WASHINGTON — House lawmakers passed a controversial bill Thursday that could lead to a ban on a form of speech that the U.S. Supreme Court has held is protected by the Constitution: flag desecration.

In a roll call strategically timed for two days before Flag Day, the House voted 310-114 in favor of a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to make flag burning, mutilation and similar acts of disrespect to Old Glory illegal.

The debate and the vote had a distinctly curious air as they involved a dramatic proposed solution to a problem that barely exists.

Even the legislation's proponents acknowledge there are few cases of flag desecration.

Furthermore, supporters seemed eager to do something that hasn't been done in the history of the republic--tamper with the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The legislation would limit the free speech guarantees in the 1st Amendment.

Thursday's vote marked the second time in recent years that the House has approved flag-protection legislation.

In 1995, it passed an anti-flag-burning measure that fell two votes shy of the needed two-thirds majority in the Senate.

A Senate version has not yet been introduced this year. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who chairs the judiciary committee, is expected to sponsor the measure, as he did in the last Congress.

If the Senate approves the legislation, the proposed amendment would have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states within seven years. If that happened, it would become part of the Constitution.

The bill's bipartisan critics said the bill is an attempt to curry favor with the public. A recent poll cited by conservative supporters indicated that 80 percent of Americans back such a measure.

But, in a debate that was often as colorful as the banner at the center of the controversy, supporters said they are driven by the higher call of love of flag and country.

"If America wants to protest, if Americans want to make political statements, burn your brassieres, burn your pantyhose, your BVDs, your dollar bills," said Rep. James Trafficant (D-Ohio), apparently unaware that it is against federal law to burn U.S. currency.

"Take a sledgehammer and destroy your car," he continued. "But the Congress of the U.S. should say leave our flag alone."

Rep. William Lipinski (D-Ill.) of Chicago said, "The flag, being the symbol of American freedom and ideas, ought to be protected with the same vigor with which we protect the very freedoms and rights it represents."

The supporters noted there is no absolute right to freedom of speech since the Supreme Court has accepted limits on pornography and certain speech, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

Opponents, however, wondered why the amendment was needed, since there has been no epidemic of flag burning.

Indeed, the Citizens Flag Alliance, a coalition formed to get the amendment passed, said it has counted only six flag burnings this year.

"Amending the Constitution is an extraordinary, serious matter," said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who noted that there have been only 17 amendments since the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791.

"I don't think we should allow a few obnoxious attention-seekers to push us into a corner," he added.

Rep. Melvin Watt (D-N.C.) grew testy over the bill's supporters conjuring up images of American soldiers fighting and dying under the flag.

"Having the guts to stand up and say this is a farce, this is a degradation of our Bill of Rights, this is what our nation is about," Watt said.

"You can vote the popular tide all you want. But those of us who know what the significance of the Bill of Rights is will stand our ground, hold out our chests and say we are Americans, too. And I hope you won't forget it."